A
R T I C L E
SNAPPS: A Learner-centered Model for Outpatient
Education
Terry M. Wolpaw, MD, Daniel R. Wolpaw, MD, and Klara K. Papp, PhD
ABSTRACT
The unique character of medical education in the outpatient setting has created challenges in teaching and learning that cannot be solved by the adaptation of traditional
inpatient approaches. Previous work and the authors’ own
observational study describe a relatively passive learner
focused on reporting history and physical examination
data to the preceptor. Based on the work of Bordage in
cognitive learning, and that of Osterman and Kottkamp
on reflective practice for educators, the authors have
developed a collaborative model for case presentations in
the outpatient setting that links learner initiation and
preceptor facilitation in an active learning conversation.
This learner-centered model for case presentations to the
preceptor follows a mnemonic called SNAPPS consisting
of six steps: (1) Summarize briefly the history and findings;
T
he ambulatory teaching environment, uniquely
different from the hospital setting and built on
brief teacher–learner interactions, continues to
challenge medical educators and keeps them
searching for methods to optimize the teaching and learning
that takes place there.1 This article examines the ambulatory
setting as a unique learning venue, addresses the integral role
of the learner in maximizing the experiential setting of the
office, and describes our initial experiences with a new
Dr. Terry Wolpaw is associate professor of medicine, Department of
Medicine, and associate dean for curricular affairs for the school of medicine;
Dr. Daniel Wolpaw is associate professor of medicine, Department of
Medicine, and associate chief of medicine at the Veterans’ Affairs Medical
Center; Dr. Papp is assistant professor of medicine, Department of Medicine.
All are at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and at
University Hospitals/Veterans’ Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Dr. Wolpaw,
Department of Medicine, University Hospitals of Cleveland, 11100 Euclid
Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44106-5529; telephone: (216) 844-7402; fax:
(216) 844-8216; e-mail: 具txw34@po.cwru.edu典.
(2) Narrow the differential to two or three relevant
possibilities; (3) Analyze the differential by comparing
and contrasting the possibilities; (4) Probe the preceptor
by asking questions about uncertainties, difficulties, or
alternative approaches; (5) Plan management for the
patient’s medical issues; and (6) Select a case-related issue
for self-directed learning. The authors conducted a pilot
study of SNAPPS, introducing the model to both thirdyear medical students and their preceptors. Feedback was
enthusiastic and underscored the importance of the paired
approach. SNAPPS represents a paradigm shift in ambulatory education that engages the learner and creates a
collaborative learning conversation in the context of
patient care.
Acad Med. 2003;78:893– 898.
precepting model that positions the learner in the lead role
when discussing patients with the preceptor.
THE OFFICE
AS A
UNIQUE LEARNING VENUE
As medical education shifted from the inpatient to the
ambulatory setting, Yonke and Foley2 questioned whether
educational techniques that worked effectively in the hospital would transition successfully to the office. Their concerns
proved remarkably insightful ten years later. As educators, we
are struggling to fit an inpatient model of patient case presentations into the office. We are condensing it, minimizing it, and
feeling frustrated that it does not fit into the brief five-minute
learning moments available between patient visits.
A fundamental distinction between the hospital and the
office centers on educational time commitments. In the
hospital setting, the teacher blocks off time on his or her
schedule and goes to where the learners are working. In the
office setting, the learner blocks off time on his or her
schedule and goes to where the teacher is working. The
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, VOL. 78, NO. 9 / SEPTEMBER 2003
893
SNAPPS,
learner makes the time commitment to education while the
teacher is immersed in the service of the practice. The time
relationship between the teacher and learner in the office
setting is opposite that in the hospital setting. It seems
logical that the individual with committed educational time
should assume a central role in structuring the learning interaction. We expect the preceptor to prepare for and direct
hospital teaching rounds. Should we expect the learner to
prepare for and direct the office learning encounter?
ROLE
LEARNER IN THE EDUCATIONAL
INTERACTION IN THE OFFICE
OF THE
In the office, where learning moments are seldom longer
than five minutes, teaching functions best when opportunities for experience and education occur in concert. In experiential learning, where actual experience and learning are
integrated, the learner takes on a central role and the
instructor’s role as expert changes to one of facilitator. The
instructor’s role is no longer to deliver but to guide. The
success of the learning endeavor is no longer the isolated
responsibility of the instructor or learner, but it becomes the
responsibility of both.3 The learner is active and directive in
the educational encounter, joining the preceptor in a collaborative office learning interaction.
What do we know about the learner’s role in medical
education? Foley et al.,4 in a classic article published two
decades ago, directly observed teaching encounters. They
found that students were passive and received a preponderance of low-level, factual information. Even in settings where
medical students did a large portion of the talking, they
tended to report factual content. Questions were seldom
asked of students, and they were rarely required to verbalize
their problem-solving efforts. In his 1995 thematic review of
the literature on ambulatory teaching and learning, Irby5
observed that the preceptor–learner interaction was still
predominantly focused on the communication of factual
information.
Our recent observational study of resident–preceptor interactions in the outpatient setting compared first-year
internal medicine residents with third-year residents, anticipating a progressive increase in the verbalization of higherorder cognitive thinking.6 Residents’ case presentations to
preceptors were recorded on audiocassettes and analyzed
using Connell et al.’s validated three-point rating scales for
measuring the cognitive activity of preceptors and their
learners.7 Remarkably, it made no difference whether the
learner was a first- or third-year resident. The majority of the
interaction with the preceptor focused on giving the facts of
the case or responding to the preceptor’s questions about the
894
CONTINUED
facts of the case. Although senior residents became more
efficient in their interactions with preceptors and had significantly shorter presentations than did interns, they continued, predominantly, to assume a reporter’s role in their
preceptor–resident encounters. The informal curriculum of
the office with associated time pressures seems to communicate to learners that facts and efficiency are target behaviors.
Summarizing and reporting factual information are skills
residents have practiced and are comfortable with, and they
are clearly less risky and less time-intensive than are verbalizing thoughts and questions. Our study points to the need to
clarify the goals of teaching and learning in the ambulatory
setting and to develop methods that enable learners to
articulate questions and uncertainties that arise in the process of patient care.
These observations of learner–teacher interactions, separated by two decades, clearly identify relatively inert, passive
learners who depend to a large extent on the energy and
expertise of the preceptors to drive the learning encounters.
The question is— can we do something to empower the
learners and enable them to contribute more to the encounters? Connell et al.7 addressed this through faculty development. They studied the promotion of thinking and reasoning
by preceptors in the outpatient setting. Preceptor–learner
encounters were analyzed before and after a series of workshops that engaged preceptors in changing the focus of case
presentations from the predominant reporting of factual
information to the expression of thinking behaviors and the
expression of uncertainties or difficulties. They used two
three-point rating scales they had developed to measure the
cognitive activity of preceptors and their students. Baseline
interaction scores revealed a major emphasis on eliciting and
clarifying facts. After a series of three intensive faculty
workshops, half of the preceptors showed marked improvement in eliciting thinking behaviors from the learners in
their offices. The length of the encounters, approximately
eight minutes, remained the same both before and after the
intervention.
Another intervention presented in faculty development
programs is learner-centered precepting. In this approach,
the preceptor encourages the learner to identify teaching
needs at the beginning of the case presentation and later to
formulate specific questions about information needed for
patient care.8
Studies such as Connell et al.’s and techniques such as
learner-centered precepting focus on the teachable moment
and optimize it through faculty development. We have
chosen to build on these contributions while changing the
focus to the learnable moment and addressing it through
learner development.
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, VOL. 78, NO. 9 / SEPTEMBER 2003
SNAPPS,
A LEARNER-CENTERED MODEL
EDUCATION
FOR
OUTPATIENT
Given the role changes inherent in the office environment
that result in committed educational time for learners rather
than teachers, we argue for a new outpatient education
model that targets the learner as an equal, if not more
important, contributor to a successful educational interaction in the office. A learner-driven educational encounter in
the office setting emphasizes the roles of the learner and the
teacher in a collaborative learning conversation. In this
cognitive “dance,” one partner may lead but each must know
the steps. We propose that in the office the learner can and
should be taught to lead. The preceptor may coach the
learner until the steps become automatic but should avoid
taking over the conversation. The theoretical framework for
this position is well established. Research has identified the
learner’s approach to learning to be the crucial factor in
determining the quality of educational outcomes.9
SNAPPS
A six-step mnemonic called SNAPPS (see List 1), structures
the learner-led educational encounter that is facilitated by
the preceptor. In this model, the learner’s case presentation
to the preceptor includes a concise summary of the facts
followed by five steps that require the verbalization of thinking and reasoning. These steps are drawn, in part, from the
cognitive activity rating scales developed by Connell et al.7
The model encourages a presentation that is intended to
redirect (but not lengthen) the learning encounter by condensing the reporting of facts and encouraging the expression
of thinking and reasoning. Though we recognize that learners enter the office setting with diverse abilities and expertise, case presentations should generally not exceed six to
seven minutes in length. The SNAPPS model depends on a
List 1
SNAPPS, a Mnemonic for a Learner-centered Model for Case
Presentations to Preceptors in the Outpatient Setting
The learner will:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Summarize briefly the history and findings
Narrow the differential to two or three relevant possibilities
Analyze the differential by comparing and contrasting the possibilities
Probe the preceptor by asking questions about uncertainties, difficulties, or
alternative approaches
5. Plan management for the patient’s medical issues
6. Select a case-related issue for self-directed learning
CONTINUED
learner–teacher continuum that should ultimately be learner
driven, but may initially need the preceptor’s coaching to
help the learner gain ease and proficiency with the steps. It
also depends on having faculty set the expectation that the
learner can and should assume a central role and can and
should ask questions. We, as teachers, have helped learners
to master inpatient presentations. We can serve in the same
role in the office with a model designed for that educational
venue.
The six steps of the SNAPPS model are now described in
more detail.
Summarize Briefly the History and Physical Findings
The learner obtains a history, performs an appropriate examination of a patient, and presents a concise summary to the
preceptor. Though the length may vary, depending on the
complexity of the case, the summary should not occupy more
than 50% of the learning encounter and, generally, should be
no longer than three minutes. The summary should be
condensed to relevant information because the preceptor can
readily elicit further details from the learner. In this step, the
learner should be encouraged to present the case at a higher
level of abstraction (i.e., to use semantic qualifiers: yesterday
becomes acute, third time becomes recurrent) because successful diagnosticians use these qualifiers early in their presentations.10,11
Narrow the Differential to Two or Three Relevant
Possibilities
The learner verbalizes what he or she thinks is going on in
the case, focusing on the most likely possibilities rather than
on “zebras.” For a new patient encounter, the learner may
present two or three reasonable diagnostic possibilities. For
follow-up or sick visits, the differential may focus on why the
patient’s disease is active, what therapeutic interventions
might be considered, or relevant preventive health strategies.
This step requires a commitment on the part of the learner,
similar to the microskills model of clinical teaching,12 and, as
the authors suggest, may initially represent early steps in the
problem-solving process such as a hunch or best guess. In the
SNAPPS method, the learner must present an initial differential to the preceptor before engaging the preceptor to
expand or revise the differential.
Analyze the Differential by Comparing and Contrasting
the Possibilities
The learner initiates a case-focused discussion of the differential by comparing and contrasting the relevant diagnostic
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, VOL. 78, NO. 9 / SEPTEMBER 2003
895
SNAPPS,
possibilities and discriminating findings. A learner’s discussion of the cause of a patient’s chest pain might proceed as
follows: “I think that angina is a concern because the pain is
in his anterior chest. At the same time I think that a
pulmonary cause is more likely because the pain is worse with
inspiration, and I heard crackles when I examined the lungs.”
Often the learner may combine this step with the previous
step of identifying the diagnostic possibilities, comparing and
contrasting each in turn. This discussion allows the learner
to verbalize his or her thinking process and can stimulate an
interactive discussion with the preceptor. Learners will vary
in their fund of knowledge and level of diagnostic sophistication, but all are expected to utilize the strategy of comparing and contrasting to discuss the differential.
Probe the Preceptor by Asking Questions about
Uncertainties, Difficulties, or Alternative Approaches
During this step, the learner is expected to reveal areas of
confusion and knowledge deficits and is rewarded for doing
so. This step is the most unique aspect of the learner-driven
model because the learner initiates an educational discussion
by probing the preceptor with questions rather than waiting
for the preceptor to initiate the probing of the learner. The
learner is taught to utilize the preceptor as a knowledge
resource that can readily be accessed. The learner may access
the preceptor’s knowledge base with questions or statements
ranging from general to specific. Examples include, “What
else should I include in the differential?,” or “I’m not sure
how to examine for a knee effusion,” or “We could taper his
corticosteroids since his Crohn’s flare is nearly resolved, but
what protocols can be used to avoid problems with steroid
withdrawal?” The preceptor can learn a great deal about the
learner’s thought process and knowledge base by such interactions.13 In the first two interactions, the learner recognizes
a need for help with knowledge or skill deficits. In the third,
the learner demonstrates a more sophisticated level of knowledge. The preceptor may discuss steroid withdrawal protocols
and introduce new learning issues such as the patient’s risk
for steroid osteoporosis.
Plan Management for the Patient’s Medical Issues
The learner initiates a discussion of patient management
with the preceptor and must attempt either a brief management plan or suggest specific interventions. This step asks for
a commitment from the learner, but encourages him or her to
access the preceptor readily as a rich resource of knowledge
and experience.
896
CONTINUED
Select a Case-related Issue for Self-directed Learning
This final step encourages the learner to read about focused,
patient-based questions. The learner may identify a learning
issue at the end of the patient presentation or after seeing the
patient with the preceptor. The learner should check with
the preceptor to focus the reading and frame relevant questions. The learner should devote time to reading as soon after
the office encounter as possible. We encourage learners to
read nightly in a regular, disciplined, and patient-based
manner rather than in long, unfocused bursts. For example, a
learner would be encouraged to read to answer a question
such as, “What is the rationale for the use of ace inhibitors in
congestive heart failure?” rather than reading an entire chapter in a review text on heart failure. Learners should have an
index card or personal digital assistant with them in the
office to note learning issues. At the next office visit, the
learner can utilize the preceptor as a resource as he or she
refers to the list and further probes the preceptor with
questions based on the readings.
IMPLEMENTING
A
LEARNER-DRIVEN APPROACH
We propose that learners along with their preceptors receive
training in this model prior to entering the office setting. The
learner is responsible for giving a case presentation that
verbalizes his or her thinking. The preceptor facilitates the
presentation and responds to the learner’s uncertainties.
Both learners and preceptors have important roles in building an educational encounter that stimulates thinking and
questioning. In the SNAPPS method, the learner organizes a
six-step case presentation to the preceptor and is expected to
take the lead role in moving through the steps. The preceptor may need to coach initially but should rapidly transfer the
lead role to the learner. The learner’s ambulatory care educational skills need as much, if not more, development than
the preceptor’s. A learner-driven and preceptor-facilitated
approach to ambulatory education has important implications for educators.
To implement a learner-driven approach, we need to
reevaluate who we have been talking to about changes in
medical education, or perhaps more accurately, who have we
not been talking to. We have been talking to the faculty, but
we need to talk to the learners as well and provide them with
strategies to strengthen their role. The SNAPPS model
heralds a change in preceptor training, pairing faculty development and learner development as companion pieces for
office-based education. It arises from a strong precedent in
reflective practice where, “the learner assumes a central
position and the model of instructor as expert gives way to
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, VOL. 78, NO. 9 / SEPTEMBER 2003
SNAPPS,
that of the instructor as facilitator. The role of leader is no
longer to deliver but to guide.”3
EXPERIENCE WITH THE SNAPPS MODEL
OUTPATIENT EDUCATION
FOR
We piloted the SNAPPS model for outpatient education
with third-year medical students during their ambulatory
medicine rotation at our institution during the 2001 to 2002
academic year and are currently designing a randomized,
controlled trial. A total of 50 students participated in the
pilot and were introduced to the model at the start of their
three-week ambulatory rotation, which includes four halfdays per week in a general internist’s office and four half-days
per week in subspecialty offices. The SNAPPS method for
case presentations was introduced in a 45-minute workshop
that included a role-play scenario demonstrating the use of
the model. Students were given a pocket card detailing the
six SNAPPS steps and received twice-weekly e-mail reminders to continue to use the SNAPPS model during their office
rotations. The model was introduced to preceptors during a
lunchtime orientation meeting. In addition, preceptors were
given a pocket card, identical to that given to the students,
outlining the steps of the method. At the beginning of each
three-week ambulatory rotation, preceptors were contacted
to remind them that students rotating in their offices would
be using the SNAPPS model and would appreciate their help
facilitating its use.
The students’ comments have been most enlightening.
They agreed that the office is usually a passive learning
setting and were enthusiastic about a model that allows them
to take an active role. Key aspects of the students’ feedback
included:
䡲
䡲
䡲
They feel capable of assuming an active role and identifying learning points that are uniquely helpful to them, based
on their prior rotations and experience.
They believe that the SNAPPS method is intuitive and
easy to learn because it is an adaptation of the established
format of history and physical, differential diagnosis, assessment, and plan.
They appreciate the unique approach of questioning the
preceptor and selecting a focused issue for self-directed
learning.
Feedback from the preceptors has focused on the emergence of students’ questions and engagement under the
guidance and expectations of the SNAPPS model. Key
aspects of their comments include:
CONTINUED
䡲
䡲
䡲
䡲
䡲
Although students rarely came up with questions when
prompted as part of a traditional office interaction, students readily came up with questions for the preceptor
when using the SNAPPS approach.
The questions were appropriate to the case, at times
directing the delivery of content to the student, and at
other times generating an interactive discussion.
Preceptors remarked that they enjoyed teaching the engaged student who is asking questions.
The preceptors felt relieved of the pressure of thinking up
learning points, and could instead respond to the student’s
questions.
Answers to student-initiated questions could develop in a
variety of directions, depending on the case at hand, but
remained stimulating because of their relevance to the
student’s learning needs and to the context of the patient
being seen.
We introduced SNAPPS into the office setting as a collaborative effort emphasizing student initiation and preceptor facilitation. The feedback we have received underscores
the importance of developing this paired approach. Although the key element of SNAPPS is the learner-centered
paradigm, it serves to structure an interactive discussion
between the teacher and learner. Our experience piloting the
model during the 2001 to 2002 academic year has made it
clear how important it is to develop faculty understanding
and facilitation. The faculty member plays a key role in
moving away from the usual comfort zone of instructor as
expert to the new zone of instructor as facilitator. The faculty
member needs to learn the SNAPPS procedure, allow the
students to use it, and find a new level of comfort as a
participant/facilitator in a learning conversation. The instructor is still an expert resource in the student’s eyes, but he
or she needs to help the student take control of his or her
own learning.
CONCLUSIONS
The SNAPPS model for case presentations to a preceptor we
have outlined in this article looks at the particular strengths
and learning conditions of the ambulatory setting and builds
on the structure of office-based patient care. This new model
grows out of the unique environment of the office and is not
an adaptation of an inpatient model. Because the teaching–
learning moments are brief but multiple, the model engages
the learner directly to identify learning needs in the context
of the patient being seen. It offers the prerequisite skills for
maintaining professional competence in the workplace by
shaping ongoing practice-based and self-directed learning
skills.3 It calls for a paradigm shift in ambulatory teaching
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, VOL. 78, NO. 9 / SEPTEMBER 2003
897
SNAPPS,
that positions the faculty and learners as partners in skilldevelopment programs and as partners in office learning.
The authors give special thanks to the American College of Rheumatology
that, in its wisdom, created the Clinician Scholar Educators Awards to
support the development of clinician educators and the pursuit of innovative
approaches to education. The authors thank Dr. Georges Bordage, who
provided an educational theory and framework to build on, and Dr. William
Branch for his thoughtful comments in reviewing the manuscript.
REFERENCES
1. Bowen J, Irby D. Assessing quality and costs of education in the ambulatory
setting: a review of the literature. Acad Med. 2002;77:621– 80.
2. Yonke AM, Foley RP. Overview of recent literature on undergraduate
ambulatory care education and a framework for future planning. Acad
Med. 1991;66:750 –5.
3. Osterman D, Kottkamp R. Reflective Practice for Educators: Improving
Schooling through Professional Development. Newbury Park, CA:
Corwin Press, 1993.
4. Foley R, Smilansky J, Yonke A. A teacher-student interaction in a
medical clerkship. J Med Educ. 1979;54:622– 6.
898
CONTINUED
5. Irby DM. Teaching and learning in ambulatory care settings: a thematic
review of the literature. Acad Med. 1995;70:898 –931.
6. Wolpaw TM, Glover PB, Papp KK. An exemplary model of learning in
the rheumatology outpatient setting.Arthritis Rheum. 2001; 44(9):
S208.
7. Connell KJ, Bordage G, Chang RW, Howard BA, Sinacore J. Measuring
the promotion of thinking during precepting encounters in outpatient
settings. Acad Med. 1999;74(10 Suppl):S10 –2.
8. Alguire PC, DeWitt DE, Pinsky LE, Ferenchick GS. Teaching in your
office: a guide to instructing medical students and residents. Philadelphia, PA: American College of Physicians, 2001.
9. Pangaro L. A new vocabulary and other innovations for improving
descriptive in-training evaluations. Acad Med. 1999;74:1203–7.
10. Chang RW, Bordage G, Connell KJ. The importance of early problem
representation during case presentations. Acad Med. 1998;73(10 suppl):
S109 –11.
11. Nendaz MR, Bordage G. Promoting diagnostic problem representation.
Med Educ. 2002;36:760 – 6.
12. Neher JO, Gordon KC, Meyer B, Stephens N. A five-step “microskills”
model of clinical teaching. Clin Teach. 1992;5:419 –24.
13. Dillon J. The Practice of Questioning. London: Routledge, 1990.
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, VOL. 78, NO. 9 / SEPTEMBER 2003